Letters

Your message included four points, so I will answer to them in the same order.

1. I don't think I ever said Sickle-Cell Anemia was a "disease". Calling it
a disease does not seem to make much sense. If I ever said that, I
apologize. I would simply say that I have a mutation called Sickle-Cell
Anemia that confers high immunity to malaria.

2. Here is the quotation of my statement that Darwin's opinion is
"irrelevant" :

"I pointed out that in evolution, a vestigial organ is an organ whose
function is reduced compared to its previous uses in evolutionary
ancestors. In answer, he quotes Darwin. How does that answer the point?
What Darwin thought has no relevance to Neo-Darwinism today, except as
historical basis."

In short, what I said was that Darwin's theory has only historical
relevance to the modern theory of Neo-Darwinism. This does not imply that I
"abandon" Darwin in any way.

3. You say the following :

"According to the mathematics of Tremblay any event in the world , how
complicated it may be , can be designed by random forces"

Since i do not believe in "random forces", or in randomity (except as a
human construct built to deal with the limits of human knowledge), the
premise of your question is incorrect. Perhaps you could ask your question
in a way that does not imply that "random forces" exist.

4. Finally, you ask :

"Doesnt it seem paradox that a majestic law which does such unimaginably
complex thing is doing it without purpose and consciousness. "

No, it does not seem paradoxical at all. I would like very much to hear
your argument as to why something without consciousness cannot produce
complexity, especially given millions of years.

To take a simple example, do you not agree that the complex and beautifully
"ordered" rainbow is formed by the interaction of light with raindrops ?
Are raindrops conscious ? Is light conscious ? Surely you can see that your
objection is spurious.

Dear Tremblay
Thank you for your for reply, though it is far from convincing. I would like to answer
one specific question you have raised about "rainbow”. There appears to be a great light years gap between mine and your understanding of terms such as design, order and complexity.

I would never refer "Rainbow" as an example for a complex piece of structure or a mechanism exhibiting design. Rainbow is simply a result of refraction between the huge amount of water particles and light.

There are no distinct components co-coordinating between themselves in the rainbow so I won’t call rainbow a "Design".
Are they ordered? yes but what order are we taking about? For example
If you drop 7 balls with different weights from an altitude, the rate at which the balls descend will always be in a particular order, here the force at work is the weight of the ball. Nevertheless one cannot treat this event as an "ordered descedence" and claim some one is at work in the transit. Similarly in the case of rainbow we have speed and wavelength at work by which we can exclude the hand of a creator. But which physical or chemical laws are we attributing, to the complex piece of design such as the central nervous system found in the living organism?

May be for you the real Design in living creatures are simply appearance similar to what Richard Dawkins mentioned in his blind watch maker and the mere appearance of Rainbow is a marvelous design. I don’t understand this rule of reasoning.

According to our usual practice, we have forwarded your letter to Francois Tremblay for a possible reply (although the decision of whether to reply is up to him). In the meantime we feel it proper to point out that your letter contains at least one error demonstrating your insufficient ken in seminal concepts of physics. You write, "For example If you drop 7 balls with different weights from an altitude, the rate at which the balls descend will always be in a particular order, here the force at work is the weight of the ball." We regret to point out this statement of yours is absurd. From the introductory course of physics you should have learned that all balls, regardless of their weight, fall with exactly the same acceleration, so the "rate at which the balls descend" does not depend on their weight. This was already established by Galileo several hundred years ago and is explained in every elementary course of physics. Your statement shows that, regardless of whether or not Francois Tremblay decides to reply to you and regardless of what he would say in his reply, it seems obvious that you need to substantially improve your knowledge of elementary concepts of physics before embarking on a serous discussion.

Your objections are not relevant to the question of complexity. The sole criteria of design for most Creationists is complexity, defined by the inverse of the probability of the system coming about by chance. What is
the probability of millions of raindrops coming about by chance to project a perfect rainbow showing colours in order? I will leave the calculations to you.

As for living organisms, we know that the probability of their emergence is one, given that the necessary facts for evolution (heredity, finite resources, mutations) exist. Therefore no design can possibly exist at that
level.

If you have a different criteria of design, you are free to present it. You say: "I would never refer "Rainbow" as an example for a complex piece of structure or a mechanism exhibiting design". But this is circular reasoning: the fact that a rainbow is complex/designed or not is precisely the point under question. Try again.